Tag Archives: Supreme Court

By Tyler J. Fortner and David G. Barker On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO’s”) refusal to issue a patent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the USPTO requests attorneys’ fees as expenses when applicants seek review of a denied patent application in district court, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses. The en banc Federal Circuit held here that applicants seeking review in district court are not required to Read More»

By Mark Webb and David G. Barker Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Rimini Street v. Oracle USA that “full costs” described in 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the (Copyright Act) are limited to the six categories of taxable costs set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920. The decision reversed the district court’s award of, and the Ninth Circuit’s order affirming, $12,774,550.26 in additional costs to Oracle for litigation costs outside of those delineated in §§ 1821 and 1920, such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting. The Court determined, absent an explicit statutory instruction, a Read More»

By Andrew F. Halaby Affirming the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court on January 22 held that post-AIA section 102(a)(1)’s provision, A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, (emphasis added), does not require that the invention “on sale” be “available to the public.” To be sure, the “on sale” bar historically has not required public availability, at least according to the Federal Circuit. (As the Read More»

By Shalayne Pillar and David G. Barker On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case that will decide whether the federal ban on trademark protection for “scandalous” material is unconstitutional. In re Brunetti follows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO’s”) denial of trademark registration for the word “Fuct,” which held that the mark “comprises immoral . . . or scandalous matter” and thus could not be registered under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. On appeal, the Federal Circuit sided with the applicant (discussed here), holding the statute violated the Free Speech provision Read More»